There's always something you can do. I have been bullied and some mental willpower is all it took for me to make them stop. If you be yourself and show that you simply do not care what the other person thinks, they will get bored. I'm not holding anything against those who are bullied, I'm just saying that there is an easy solution.
There are far better ways to convince someone to improve themselves than by harrassing them day in and day out. Bullying can lead to depression and even suicide, and I'd hardly call it way of engouraging people.
FreedomBeforeEquality: There is big middle ground between light teasing and serious bullying. Its harrassement. Why is it when an adult is assaulted harrassed or stalked its a crime but when it happens to a kid everyone tells them to toughen up and get over it?
Rphk123's comment is sorta contradictory, I guess you could say: he says you shouldn't give a **** about the bully and/or what they're saying, then he says fat people should hit the gym, then he goes and says think it as humorous. Also, I think he's also saying if you're a straight A student, you should get answers wrong on purpose? I almost feel like reporting his post...
Freedom: there is a big middle ground Between light teasing and serious bullying, emphesis on the between. We arn't discussing friends making small jokes about each other, we're talking about daily harrasment and sometimes even physical violence.
You treat physical violence as physical violence. You don't treat verbal teasing as physical violence. I hear people trying to put people away for something verbal for the same sentence they would give a person who physically harmed or killed someone. That just isn't right.
I wouldn't go to an activist awareness site for the correct definition on anything. They're usually trying to redefine things anyways.
The vast majority of cases are verbal teasing, so that's what it is. It is not a common weapon for killing, it should not be dealt with in federal courts.
Hmm ... Sources for "not a common weapon for killing" ... Well its not even listed with a metric under the statistics given off by the local police force here as a form used for homicide. Its a big and heavily populated county. I think its pretty representative of the rest of the nation. Does that count? I suppose that makes it "uncommon" right?
As far as activists trying to redefine things. Here are 3 examples of activist sites trying to state a definition for the thing they're making an issue of. Its usually one of the first things they put in their site, right next to the mission statement. They have to 'educate' you first to get you ready to believe the pile of crap they are about to feed you.
Freedom thinks we're talking about verbal TEASING (sounds pretty minor), it's more like insulting, what's supposed to make you feel bad. Verbal teasing sounds like what what Markiplier and Muyskyrm do to LordMinion777. Insulting is when someone makes fun of the fact that you like MLP.
Freedom said: they can want what they want, it's their freedom. *sigh* People aren't free to do whatever, just like we can't wear clothes with drug Logos on it, as of topic as that is. If bullying isn't a good thing, why are schools trying to take bullying down? Also, answer this question: Are you into bullying?
I'm not into it ... But whether or not im not into it doesnt matter. In public you CAN wear clothes with drug logos on them. What image you put off to others and what you say to others is all free speech. Children in schools doing those things (drug paraphernalia etc.) is different. They are minors and what they do puts across an image of their parents. They arent full fledged citizens and can't make poor choices without their parents feeling consequences for them. Beyond that they can f up their lives however they want.
That verbal is protected. That whatever harm may come of it is disjunct because it takes the 2nd party's reaction to it and their subsequent decisions to actually make said damage apparent. It is in no way like an actual physical action.
Ok. Freedom said: "they can want what they want, it's their freedom". His argument is saying that verbal bullying is not the same as physical bullying, which is correct, but his comment "they can want what they want, it's their freedom" suggests that he also defends bullies, both physical and verbal. (or at least how I see it)
I defend their ability to want something ot hate something or whatever else. Nothing about actually getting it. They still have to keep their physical self to themselves. They can't express their distaste for something as intensely as they want as long as it doesn't turn into a fist in the persons face or something of that nature.